United States Politics Thread 47

[malloc]

Besides, your view of things under a democracy is, oddly enough, too rosy. Most people either don't care much about politics, or leave the thinking to their respective political camps' leading politicians or commentators.

That was precisely my point. Democracy in the US is collapsing because too many people couldn't be bothered to pay attention to politics and failed to notice the rising tide of dictatorship. It takes active effort to prevent the rise of dictatorship whereas allowing it to persist requires nothing apart from mindless obedience.

"If." I told you before that for all their bluster about military service being the apex of the human condition fascists are bad at war. They didn't survive because they picked fights they couldn't win and then doubled down rather than ever eat crow.

Sure but they also lacked the overwhelming power of the US military and faced much stronger adversaries. Nobody today even comes close to the US in terms of military spending or sheer amount of weaponry. Furthermore the military is one of the few government institutions Trump is not defunding or eliminating. Imagine if Europe had to fight the US and Russia at the same time in a third world war. Would you really expect them to win?

[Otto Kretschmer]

The problem is that majority of Chinese people are no longer sweatshop workers - Chinese labor aristocracy (usually called middle class) numbers 500 mln people already and is constantly growing.

Regarding conditions - what material conditions made a figure like Trump rise to power in the United States of 2020s and not in, say, Sweden of 1970s?

[keenir]

Besides, your view of things under a democracy is, oddly enough, too rosy. Most people either don't care much about politics, or leave the thinking to their respective political camps' leading politicians or commentators.

That was precisely my point. Democracy in the US is collapsing

aw, did Fox News tell you so, thus you can't be arsed to see if its actually another lie?

"If." I told you before that for all their bluster about military service being the apex of the human condition fascists are bad at war. They didn't survive because they picked fights they couldn't win and then doubled down rather than ever eat crow.

Sure but they also lacked the overwhelming power of the US military and faced much stronger adversaries.

in absolute terms? definately, on both parts.

but in relative terms, not in the slightest. there's a reason why the Nazis are among those credited with large-scale innovations in Lightning Warfare.

Nobody today even comes close to the US in terms of military spending or sheer amount of weaponry.

again, in absolute terms, sure. but thats easy for a nation as large as we are, harder for a country, say, the size of New Hampsire.

Furthermore the military is one of the few government institutions Trump is not defunding or eliminating.

Less than one page ago, I mentioned to you that Trump's minions are firing 1/4 of all 4-star Generals, and are trying to fire all women from the armed forces.

I reiterate: are you forgetting or ignoring?

[jcb]

Trump accepted a free plane from Qatar. Apparently, he's impatient of waiting for the current plane that's being upgraded, so he wants to use this one instead, is ignorant of the upgrades this one needs, and is so naive that he doesn't think that the new plane is bugged or sabotaged in any way! What a stunning display of corruption and idiocy!
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UP5dC7ZKZ8

Since we're speaking about the incompetence of fascists, I've always been struck by the poor cryptography and intelligence abilities of the axis in WW2. Enigma got cracked, Japanese naval codes got cracked, they got easily fooled by Garbo ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pujol_García ), just to name a few. All were avoidable and self-inflicted from their own hubris and incompetence. And here Trump is, on the verge of (probably) bugging himself. (Also, don't forget the Telegram fiasco from two months ago!) The fascists are still hubristic and incompetent.

[Torco]

That was precisely my point. Democracy in the US is collapsing because too many people couldn't be bothered to pay attention to politics and failed to notice the rising tide of dictatorship. It takes active effort to prevent the rise of dictatorship whereas allowing it to persist requires nothing apart from mindless obedience.

i feel this is naive. i'm not sure i disagree, but the following arguments emerge right away in my mind. i'm not sure they're compatible yet:


line 1: no, it's not apathy: it's not some fascist small minority that the vast antifascist majority would stop if only they were engaged in politics. ask a non-voter about his political ideas and you sometimes hear some fucked up stuff.

line 2: isn't it rather obvious that the last two global rises of fascism coincide with a big technological shift in IT in the broad sense of the word? by IT here i mean computers but also the printing press. maybe it's not apathy, but simply the fact that new media just makes it easier to convince people to support führers, at least until society develops antibodies for their propa?

[MacAnDàil]

That was precisely my point. Democracy in the US is collapsing because too many people couldn't be bothered to pay attention to politics and failed to notice the rising tide of dictatorship. It takes active effort to prevent the rise of dictatorship whereas allowing it to persist requires nothing apart from mindless obedience.

i feel this is naive. i'm not sure i disagree, but the following arguments emerge right away in my mind. i'm not sure they're compatible yet:


line 1: no, it's not apathy: it's not some fascist small minority that the vast antifascist majority would stop if only they were engaged in politics. ask a non-voter about his political ideas and you sometimes hear some fucked up stuff.

That does exist but the people who totally would vote left-wing but are too demanding also exist.

line 2: isn't it rather obvious that the last two global rises of fascism coincide with a big technological shift in IT in the broad sense of the word? by IT here i mean computers but also the printing press. maybe it's not apathy, but simply the fact that new media just makes it easier to convince people to support führers, at least until society develops antibodies for their propa?

That is plausible.
--
We have mentioned here anti-Trump protests of which more than 3 million have attended.

We have also mentioned geopolitical realignment and this is attested in Serbia, where the Trump, Putin and Xi governments all oppose the protests.

Both of which are related to this MSNBC segment about the reasons for anti-Trump protests including leaving tonnes of food to rot and legalising machien guns: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wk6CRtUUTE

[rotting bones]

I don't understand why people keep saying Trump is not a militarist. IIRC he bombed Yemen and Somalia. For a while, it has been looking like he might fight Iran. I'm not sure.

[Raphael]

I don't understand why people keep saying Trump is not a militarist. IIRC he bombed Yemen and Somalia. For a while, it has been looking like he might fight Iran. I'm not sure.

Some people with previously left-wing politics have decided to throw in their lot with Trump, and because of that, they systematically ignore every fact about him that would make him look bad from their perspective.

Besides, these same people are sometimes convinced that the main action of US militarism over the last few years was helping Ukraine (complete nonsense, of course). If you believe that, then Trump's hostility towards Ukraine is a sign of supposed "non-militarism".

[hwhatting]

I guess there are three things here:
- Trump is by nature a bully. He likes to threaten and to occasionally kick the weak, but he doesn't like protracted fights, because that means his bullying hasn't worked.
- He has no sense of commitment; his preferred mode is to build fences to the outside and have everybody paying for access and support. That's why he's ready to spend oodles of money on missile defence, but sees war or supporting allies financially as a waste of money.
- He doesn't understand ideals; he only understands power and money and transactions based on them, and is lost in situations where others aren't ready to give up their goals and commitments in exchange for material advantage.
So to him, the military is a means of protection of his gated property (the U.S.), of bullying, and a bargaining chip in his "deals". He's not a militarist in the sense that he's infatuated with the military as an institution*), or wants society structured along military lines, or that he sees military action as the solution to everything. So I wouldn't call him a militarist**), but he's certainly not a pacifist either.
*) In his first term, he showed the kind of deference to military leaders typical for civilians with an authoritarian mindset who haven't served (and he also knows that it always plays well with his base to show respect to soldiers), making him fill influential positions with former generals, but that seems mostly gone during his second term.
**) I know there are people who use "miltarist" as a term of abuse for anyone who ever uses military action they don't like, but that robs the term of any diagnostic value.

[rotting bones]

So to him, the military is a means of protection of his gated property (the U.S.), of bullying, and a bargaining chip in his "deals". He's not a militarist in the sense that he's infatuated with the military as an institution*), or wants society structured along military lines, or that he sees military action as the solution to everything. So I wouldn't call him a militarist**), but he's certainly not a pacifist either.

Wanting a military parade on his birthday and threatening to unleash the military on American civilians don't count? I agree that he thinks servicemen are idiots for risking life and limb to follow his orders, but that won't stop him from squeezing out every last drop of service they have to offer (before kicking them to the curb).

[hwhatting]

Wanting a military parade on his birthday and threatening to unleash the military on American civilians don't count? I agree that he thinks servicemen are idiots for risking life and limb to follow his orders, but that won't stop him from squeezing out every last drop of service they have to offer.

Your second sentence answers the question. The parade and the threat are just his usual self-aggrandizing and bullying. But I understand militarism as more than just readiness to use the military as a tool when it comes in handy; to me it implies a conviction that war and militarising society are good things in themselves, which I don't see with Trump.

[rotting bones]

Your second sentence answers the question. The parade and the threat are just his usual self-aggrandizing and bullying. But I understand militarism as more than just readiness to use the military as a tool when it comes in handy; to me it implies a conviction that war and militarising society are good things in themselves, which I don't see with Trump.

How far does your definition stretch? Let's say Trump replaced all celebrations with military parades, replaced the police with the military, started WWIII and took over half the earth. If his dying words were, "Hah, you fucking morons *croak*," would he not be a militarist? It doesn't seem right to only designate perverts who fetishize the military as "militarists" regardless of their actions. Google's Oxford definition says: "a person who believes that a country should maintain a strong military capability." It seems perverse not to apply this description to Trump.

[keenir]

Your second sentence answers the question. The parade and the threat are just his usual self-aggrandizing and bullying. But I understand militarism as more than just readiness to use the military as a tool when it comes in handy; to me it implies a conviction that war and militarising society are good things in themselves, which I don't see with Trump.

How far does your definition stretch? Let's say Trump replaced all celebrations with military parades, replaced the police with the military, started WWIII and took over half the earth. If his dying words were, "Hah, you fucking morons *croak*," would he not be a militarist?

well if we're going to multiply entitites unneccessarily, then you forgot to have Trump order all penguins be armed for his conquest of Greenland and Australia (lots of minerals in both)

you added a lot of things with your "if"s and "lets say"s.

It doesn't seem right to only designate perverts who fetishize the military as "militarists" regardless of their actions. Google's Oxford definition says: "a person who believes that a country should maintain a strong military capability." It seems perverse not to apply this description to Trump.

I'd be curious when Oxford's definition was coined, and if conventional use has expanded since then.

[hwhatting]

Your second sentence answers the question. The parade and the threat are just his usual self-aggrandizing and bullying. But I understand militarism as more than just readiness to use the military as a tool when it comes in handy; to me it implies a conviction that war and militarising society are good things in themselves, which I don't see with Trump.

How far does your definition stretch? Let's say Trump replaced all celebrations with military parades, replaced the police with the military, started WWIII and took over half the earth. If his dying words were, "Hah, you fucking morons *croak*," would he not be a militarist?

Sure, but that's not what he's doing.

Google's Oxford definition says: "a person who believes that a country should maintain a strong military capability."

Then the Oxford definition is overly broad and useless, IMO.

[rotting bones]

Sure, but that's not what he's doing.

It's only been 4 months.

[Raphael]

I guess there are three things here:
- Trump is by nature a bully. He likes to threaten and to occasionally kick the weak, but he doesn't like protracted fights, because that means his bullying hasn't worked.
- He has no sense of commitment; his preferred mode is to build fences to the outside and have everybody paying for access and support. That's why he's ready to spend oodles of money on missile defence, but sees war or supporting allies financially as a waste of money.
- He doesn't understand ideals; he only understands power and money and transactions based on them, and is lost in situations where others aren't ready to give up their goals and commitments in exchange for material advantage.

I mostly agree with your three points there, but I'm not sure how it follows from them that Trump is not a militarist. He's certainly very trigger-happy about using the military when he thinks it won't cost him much.

[zompist]

I mostly agree with your three points there, but I'm not sure how it follows from them that Trump is not a militarist. He's certainly very trigger-happy about using the military when he thinks it won't cost him much.

I think that's a pretty good description of someone who's not a militarist. A militarist is a trigger-happy person who uses the military even when it does cost a lot.

The danger with Trump is not, I think, that he wants a major war, or even an ongoing medium war like Afghanistan. It's that he's an idiot who could mistake a high-cost operation for a low-cost one.

[Torco]

or, just don't care about the cost much

[keenir]

or, just don't care about the cost much

why should Trump care about the cost? its not like he's going to be the one stuck with the bill.

[Torco]

yup. plus, trumpies will think he did it excellently even if literally 60% of americans die of lead poisoning. did you know argentinians keep voting for milei ?